1. Guido reports on the Duncan v Harperson show, and very entertaining it is too.
2. Paul Waugh warns against messin' with Tory MP Ben Wallace.
3. Red Box has a leaked memo showing just what Norman Baker thinks of Susan Kramer.
4. Sunder Katwala puts the case for a Lib-Lab coalition. Worked really well last time, didn't it?
5. Croydonian on how the media swallowed Hamas's line on the UN school in Gaza.
6. Douglas Carswell on whether we need a new register of lobbyists.
7. Lord Soley on why it's perfectly OK for him to be paid for lobbying.
8. Alistair Cooke explains how Salisbury's first government fell.
9. Letters from a Tory says Mark Field is wrong to want to abolish speed cameras. Except he doesn't.
10. John Redwood asks how we can get out of a black hole.
11. Events, Dear Boy, Events imagines a Brown-Obama conversation.
12. A Very British Dude on 10 great American things we can't do without.
Re the Norman Baker memo:
Ordinarily Susan Kramer should be toast at the next election. However, I can tell you, the good burghers of Richmond as not that taken by champagne swampy and erstwhile anarchist Zac Goldsmith. His selection to fight this constituency was a tactical error by CCHQ and as a result a lost opportunity.
Sounds reasonable Colin - i'd have significant problems voting for him. Not exactly a nice guy. And people who just do it for the gig, well, what's the point? Go play golf - it's what I did and bally good fun it is too.
Following the Croydonian link, one learns that only 12 people who were actually inside the compound were hit and none of them were killed.
41 other people were killed, many of whom had been sheltering in the compound, but who were actually outside the wall when they died.
Phew, well that's all right then. I'm glad that there was really nothing to get excited about.
Mind you, I accept that is not the view of the UN rep whose testimony is being used to set the record straight. He blames Israel for the confusion (their incorrect allegation that gunmen had been firing from the school) and for the the deaths - but what would he know?
I invite everyone to read the original story in full, as it appears that Iain did not.
I had written a long rambling comment to the same effect as yours and then abandoned it.
However, a few key lines from the article:
"I told the Israelis that none of the shells landed in the school," he said.(John Ging)
Why would he do that?
"Because they had told everyone they had returned fire from gunmen in the school. That wasn't true."
The Israelis are the ones, he said, who got everyone thinking the deaths occurred inside the school.
The Daley Dozen link states "...on how the media swallowed Hamas's line on the UN school in Gaza."
Congratulations Iain, this is a first.
You have now managed to conflate the Israeli Defence Force with Hamas.
Glad to see you providing a little balance.
[Sigh] More deliberate and rather nasty misogyny or what?
Simon Gardner - yeah laddy, tell that to Fathers for Justice.
several others have picked up on this Iain, but Croydonian might have got in got in a muddle with his schools (aside from the fact that it seems OK to kill 43 people as long as they're not inside a school).
Rather than 'the media swallowing the Hamas line' as you interpret the post, it shows why decent journalism trumps knee-jerk blogging . . . you don't print without checking.
Dick the Prick said..."yeah laddy, tell that to Fathers for Justice."???
This is a non sequitur.
Post a Comment